Republicans/NRA’s reason to support unlimited gun rights is so these ‘patriots’ can one day kill American cops and soldiers

Why is it rap stars get in trouble about lyrics that talk about shooting the police but right wingers get away with saying the same thing in relation to the 2nd amendment?

Me writing that the “the 2nd amendment solutions” meme is part of the mentality of the GOP and their affiliates like the NRA is, I think, self evident.

PS: To those that want examples. GOOGLE it up. For example the rightwing’s use of “the 2nd amendment solutions” meme means, barring a foreign invasion along the lines of “Red Dawn”, is that they are armed so they one day these arms can be used against the “gubberment”, and unless we hire foreigners to serve as police or soldiers one day, that means these so called “patriots” plan on using their guns on America’s police and soldiers.

Not today of course. Today, they “support” our troops and police (and allow cops to keep collective bargaining union power, unlike say, greedy evil teacher’s unions) but they know one day, maybe tomorrow, they will maybe have to kill the cops and soldiers they so love and support today.

He said "Republicans" without any qualifiers. That constitutes a blanket condemnation by my lights. That's why I downdinged the post, because it lumped me and several members of my family in with militia types.

He said "Republicans" without any qualifiers. That constitutes a blanket condemnation by my lights. That's why I downdinged the post, because it lumped me and several members of my family in with militia types.

Have you or anyone of your family members stated that the second amendment is necessary for the very real possibility that they need to revolt and kill blue helmeted soldiers and police? If so, then you - along with doomsday preppers -- should be lumped in. If not, you are drawing a conclusion that is not there. It's like saying "Blondes have more fun". Not all blondes have more fun -- It is an understood given.

The internet is chock full of right wingers defending gun rights as a protection against tyranny. one example..from the NRA blog no less.. link

I realized that the NRA is not only about firearms. The NRA is about protecting a means by which the people can protect their God-given rights. Thomas Jefferson once said, "The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."

The NRA is all about protecting our right to protect ourselves against tyranny in government. At this time in history, and from the beginning of America's history, this means of protecting our liberty comes in the shape of firearms.

The only reason a person would need firearms to protect themselves against "tyranny in Government" is to shoot at the policemen or soldiers that the hypothetical tyrannical government is sending down your street.
Search gun rights and tyranny to find a billion other examples of this standard line of reasoning for keeping an arsenal in your home.

The Obama administration, and all of their minions and useful idiots, want to rule over a populace that cannot defend itself. Rulers do not like opposition. This is the reason for the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution, to prevent tyranny over a defenseless public...

Yet, now, because a deranged psychopath was allowed to act out a horrendous atrocity against children and school teachers, Obama would like nothing better than to disarm everyone everywhere, except of course his own government.

In fact, according to the founders, guns – including AK47s in the modern context – belong in the hands of the citizens and their state militias, as plainly and eloquently spelled out in the Second Amendment. Thomas Jefferson and the founders did not craft the Second Amendment to protect the right of hunters and target shooters. It was included – right after the First Amendment guareenting political speech – to ensure the right of citizens to violently oppose a tyrannical federal government if need be.

AK47s and other “assault” weapons are the sort of tools that will be used if push comes to shove and the people must violently oppose the government.

Sorry, but I don't agree. Mounting a headline that reads "Republicans/NRA’s reason to support unlimited gun rights is so these ‘patriots’ can one day kill American cops and soldiers" and then not offering up significant qualification in your follow-on sentence is in fact a blanket condemnation in my book. If Destro wishes to qualify it, he may, but until he does my remarks stand as written.

Me writing that the "the 2nd amendment solutions" meme is part of the mentality of the GOP and their affiliates like the NRA is, I think, self evident.

And "the 2nd amendment solutions" comment means, barring a foreign invasion along the lines of "Red Dawn", is that they are armed so they one day can be used against the "gubberment" and unless we hire foreigners to serve as police or soldiers one day, that means these so called "patriots" plan on using their guns on America's police and soldiers.

Not today of course. Today, they "support" our troops and police (and allow cops to keep collective bargaining union power, unlike say, greedy evil teacher's unions) but they know tomorrow, they will may to kill the cops and soldiers they so love and support today.

The Second Amendment is an individual civil right. Live with it. Between your insults at Obdi and your red meat rhetoric I am reminded of a similar tone in the past by those against other civil rights.

Sure we need to regulate guns. And the very same court so many hold in contempt is precisely who points this out in recent rulings.

The Second Amendment is an individual civil right. Live with it. Between your insults at Obdi and your red meat rhetoric I am reminded of a similar tone in the past by those against other civil rights.

Sure we need to regulate guns. And the very same court so many hold in contempt is precisely who points this out in recent rulings.

I am not a Christian so I did not forgive Obdi's insult directed at me. So you have a problem with my counter insult. Tough and fuck you and all you gun nuts.

Go browse places like wnd and you find plenty of those comments. What percentage of the population it is I don't know, but they are real. In a nutshell, anyone who "comes after their guns" is the enemy, America or Kenyan or whatever and they would have the constitutional right to defend with lethal force.

Saying that guns are there to oppose tyranny by the government is by necessity saying that the purpose is to kill agents of the government.

However note the "almost".

People often soften it, by claiming that the purpose is to "change the relationship between the government and the people to prevent tyranny"

That would make the purpose, not to kill government employees and elected officials, but to intimidate and threaten government employees and elected officials. Of course this implies a couple of other things, such as that empty threats are effective, which isn't usually a conservative idea.

But both interpretations imply that democracy isn't enough, that voting isn't legitimate enough but rather than threats of violence have to be there too. It's certainly an anti-liberal idea.

Oddly, even if this sounds like a right wing fantasy that has no basis in reality, there is an example of the threat of violence moving the government one that Republicans would never site.

And that is the civil rights movement and the good cop, bad cop dynamic between Martin Luther King's non-violent, respectable civil rights movement, and the threat of violence by radicals like Malcom X.

It's not 100% clear to me that MLK could have been so successful in pushing through civil rights legislation if everyone hadn't been scared of the violence that the radicals could incite if he failed.

But the right, the very right that loves to talk about how guns prevent the tyranny of the government are the very same white whiners who feel totally victimized by the success of the civil rights movement and the rising position of blacks.

t's not 100% clear to me that MLK could have been so successful in pushing through civil rights legislation if everyone hadn't been scared of the violence that the radicals could incite if he failed.

I always thought that the White House supported civil rights in addition to the reasons you mentioned was that the USSR was using America's unequal society in counter acting America's claim as leader of the free world, especially during a time the USA was not winning a war in Vietnam.

In a perpetual personal feud, Duelists generally don't menace anyone but each other, unless, of course, another Warrior foolishly gets between them. They may not even remember what started the fight, but not they cordially loathe one another and seize every to go at each other. When the other Warriors eventually weary of their endless kvetching the Duelists will be shouted down or Nanny will ban them. Even after getting the heave-ho from one forum, however, it is not unusual for them to seeking each other in other forums to renew their fight.

How about G. Gordon Liddy telling his radio listener to shoot ATF agents in the head because they wear bullet proof vests?

Or Dick Morris: "Those crazies in Montana who say, 'We're going to kill ATF agents because the U.N.'s going to take over' -- well, they're beginning to have a case."

Or the psychotic Glenn Beck: "I'm going to find these big progressives and, to the day I die, I'm going to be a progressive hunter."

Or Jim Quinn: "It's about time to put an end to this leftist control of this country, and if a revolution is what it takes, damn it, then that's what it's going to take, because liberty will not be denied."

First: Those comments by media figures don't justify a blanket condemnation of the entire Republican Party.

Second: That comment by Glenn Beck doesn't belong with the others. While conspiracist, its clear intent is to hunt 'big progressives' in terms of finding them and 'exposing' them on his show. It doesn't read as a death threat.